[10] Mr. Bhattacharjee contends that from the evidence of
PW- 1 it is clear that in front of their house the appellant and the
deceased were engaged in quarrel. Now, PW 11 has stated in his
examination in chief that in the night of incident he was sleeping
with his family member in his dwelling hut, at about 11.00 PM he
Page 6 of 22
heard cry of a women from a nearby place of his house and he
called Manglu Karmakar (PW-15) who is his relative to see the
matter and allegedly found the women lying in the Varanda of shop
of Sailen Lohar and allegedly found the appellant cleaning blood
from a knife with a cloth. PW-15 also in similar tune stated the said
fact but, he deposed before the trial Court that the male person i.e.
the accused was found to have been cleaning blood from a dao with
a cloth. He submits that „knife‟ and „dao‟ are two different things
having different shape and size and thus, there was a clear
contradiction between the said two depositions. It is also contended
that PW-1 or PW-4 never stated that they ever heard crying of a
woman in front of her house. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee,
learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, the learned Trial Court
has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper
perspective and also has failed to appreciate that the prosecution
could not prove the chain of circumstances in the present case. He
further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
that while the appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
to the question no. 92, he has specifically denied that deceased was
his wife, but, the learned Trial Court did not discuss the said
fact. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, therefore, urges
this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2023
Page 7 of 22
passed by the learned Court below and to support his contention,
he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court
passed in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer Vs. State of Kerala
reported in 2024 STPL 11721 SC.